Criminal appeals to overturn a conviction are difficult to win. Most reversals are based on an error of law committed by the judge. When there's no error of law, and the jury finds someone guilty on the facts, its very difficult to convince an appellate court to second guess the jury's findings and overturn the verdict. I don't know all the facts, and I don't mean to imply that it would be impossible, but it sounds like an appeal of the sentence as excessive, rather than the conviction itself , is more likely to be succesful.

Now, tell everyone what you are before a certain poster, from another country, tells you how US laws work.

I want to stop the derail before it begins.

Thanks.

On topic, this is why ALL martial artists have to be careful. Black Belt stupidity and the lethal hand myth still exist.

Get a good lawyer and look into the guy he fought. Tattoos of brass knuckles? Come on, dude probably has probably been booked for assault a few times. If that is the case, that shouldn't be tough to get introduced. Once it is clear to a jury that this guy has a history of starting fights, it should be a big help for the defense of your buddy.

For that matter, blow this thing up on facebook, looking for other people that have gotten into fights with this dude. See if they will be willing to testify. It's getting a lot tougher to hide past transgressions in the age of social media.

The trial is over. All the evidence has been introduced, and the jury has gone home. Any effort to bring in new evidence would have to be directed to the attention of the trial judge, and it would have to be directly probative of innocence -- for example, a statement from the alleged victim that it was he who really started the fight, or that it was someone else who actually hit him.

Evidence that merely MIGHT have swayed the jury but wasn't known at the time of the trial, such as proof that the victim has been in other fights, isn't going to cut it unless you can show that it was deliberately withheld from the defense by the prosecution (so it becomes a violation of due process). There has to be finality to a verdict, otherwise trials would go on forever.